9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-I), Chennai. 1. The assessee made a claim for refund of service tax of Rs. 18,98,593/- paid for the period March, 2005 to November, 2010. As the appellant had undertaken railway electrification work which was exempted as per CBEC Circular No. 123/5/2010 T.R.U. dt. 24.05.2010 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-I), who vide the impugned order dt. 25.05.2016, has set aside the refund order of the adjudicating authority, thereby allowing the Revenue's appeal. Against that, the assessee is before this forum. 2. Heard Shri. M. Masilamni Ld. Consultant for the assessee and Shri. R. Subramaniyan Ld. Department Representative for the Revenue. 3. The onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessee has in fact received the contract amount, they cannot withhold the refund which is sanctioned and further submits that in any case, the Department cannot retain the same without any authority of law. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the records. There is no doubt that the nature of service rendered by the assessee was an exempted service which did not invite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
